Abilities of Pragmatic Language Usage of the Children with Language Delay After the Completion of Normal Language Development Training

WOS: 000271114000010Objectives: A child may pronounce words clearly, have a large vocabulary, use long, complex sentences and correct grammar, and still have a communication problem if he or she has not mastered the rules for appropriate social language. It is known that functional or pragmatic language usage is not problematic for children who have completed normal language development process. We investigated whether children who have previously had receptive, expressive, or mixed language development delays will likely have problems in the use of pragmatic language after formal training. Materials and Methods: Two different subject groups composed of 67 children between the ages of 3-6 and classified as the ones with and without language delay. Children with language delay received educational treatment, auditory processing and speech and language training. Training was consisted of acoustic signal perception, auditory discrimination, auditory comprehension, conception training, phonological processing training, speech sound processing; and speech and language education. The average of training period was between 1 to 2 years. Their receptive and expressive language was tested at 6 month-interval. In children whose language development was compatible with chronological age, pragmatic language performance was evaluated. Children's pragmatic language usage skills were evaluated in both groups with Descriptive Pragmatics Profile (DPP) by using the rating technique (never, sometimes, often, always), in terms of the abilities "Conversational Routines and Skills" (CRS); Asking for, Giving and Responding to Information"(AGRI). The Chi Square Test was used for statistical analysis. Results: Only four of nineteen items were similar (1. Waves or says hello/goodbye (in CRS part), 2. Demonstrates turn-taking rules during play and/or in classroom (in CRS part), 3. Gives and accepts hugs (in AGRI part) and 4. Asks for help from others (in AGRI part) (p>0.05), whereas the fifteen items were significantly different between groups (p